Women Are More Comfortable Sharing A Lover

A religious American woman engaged to a Frenchman writes about her experience with him when he broke off their engagement. An old high school flame had come back into his life and, as he explained to his American fiancée, he couldn’t decide if he loved the old flame.

(Don’t old flames just have a sixth sense for knowing when their window of opportunity is about to close? goddamned eerie.)

The author decides to “stay” with him; that is, she does not harangue him with an ultimatum or break up with him in a fury of righteous indignation. She instead offers to give him the space he needs to decide with whom his love is strongest and whether to come back to her at an unspecified future date should he want to do that. She calls this a relationship limbo born out of love for him. They continue emailing and calling over the next several months (the author is vague about any chance that they met for quasi-makeup sex during the limbo interim), and the story ends with no resolution. He still has not chosen between the two women, and the author still loves him. In her words:

If the man I love does come back, it will not be because I have threatened or manipulated him. His return will not be mere capitulation to the all-or-nothing terms I have set. It will come from a place of deep self-knowledge that he has found in his own time. And if I take him back, it will be because of similarly deep self-knowledge, made possible by this very difficult thing I have chosen to do: live with limbo, and take responsibility for my own happiness.

I admire this. She is wise enough to know that ultimatums are the worst possible foundation for a marriage. She also senses, although I doubt she could comprehend the true reasons why, that men are capable of loving more than one woman simultaneously. This is an emotional feat most women cannot grasp, because it is not in a woman’s nature to love more than one man at a time. It takes a selfless woman with a grounded ego and big heart to be able to temporarily silence the hamster and admit to herself that, although she could never do it, perhaps her man really does love two women at once.

Maxim #200: Men acquire lovers; women share lovers.

But she is unwise in one respect: he may return, but not in love. There is no guarantee that he doesn’t return to his American lover simply because his options dried up. Perhaps years later the old high school flame gains weight and our intrepid alpha male* Frenchman loses his love for her, which impels him to seek the comfort and sexual satisfaction of his former lover once again. In other words, she may serve as nothing more than his safety snatch. Yet, for many women, playing safety snatch to an alpha male is preferable to playing top choice to a beta male. So we come round again to my admiration for her purity: she loves an alpha male, and she will surrender her ego to be with him, no matter the cost. I don’t fault her at all for her decision.

*How do you know he is an alpha male?, some of you are probably asking. We know because he has two women in love with him, and at least one of them has agreed to become a de facto member of his nascent harem. Or: it’s self-evident, Sherlock.

The implications of her decision, amplified a million-fold across the corners of the globe, should give betas pause. Women have a natural instinct to sort into concubinage under a sole alpha male. Now, this does not mean women favor such an arrangement to the exclusion of all others; ideally, women would like an alpha male all to their own. But given a world full of competing choices, a woman’s evolutionarily guided hindbrain impulse pushes her, continually like the slow but forceful eddies in a tidal pool, into an arrangement where she feels more sexually fulfilled, as a woman, being the second or third or even thirtieth concurrent lover of a powerful man instead of the first and sole lover of a weak man.

Of course, most modern women do wind up settling for beta males (usually at the tail end of their prime attractiveness years), not least because social taboos and restrictions prevent the large-scale formation in the West of openly recognized harems (to date; see: gay marriage slippery slope). Many women, unbeknownst to their conscious minds, find a loophole to this societal shaming mechanism by doing what the Salon author did: they drop out of the dating market to wistfully pine for an unavailable alpha male while he enjoys the pussy fruit of multiple women. Women who aren’t into the whole wistful pining thing prefer the alternatives of riding the cock carousel or cheating on beta boyfriends while keeping it on the DL.

The Salon author, Sharon Hewitt, very much resembles the protagonist from Story of O. She gives everything, including pride, in the service of love for a high value man. And she would have it no other way, though her actions violate just about every sacrosanct feminist principle of what it supposedly means to be an “empowered” woman. O, like this author, has discovered that the ultimate assertion of female empowerment resides in surrendering completely, despite all odds stacked against her and peer pressure to do otherwise, to love. Love, even, and maybe especially, for a man who would tell her he loves another, or would, like René, offer her body to strangers for sexual plundering.

That, my friends, is the unearthly pull of the alpha male.

So, a toast to Miss Hewitt, for reminding betas how badly the cards are stacked against them. You remain true to a man who has abandoned his wedding promise to you to spend time with another women. More than true, you remain in love with him. In doing so, you have removed yourself from the dating market, and ensured that one man enjoys the pleasure of two women while another man goes without the pleasure of any woman.

[They’ll happily dump a fuck in her, but they won’t happily provide for her or promise to help raise her bastard spawn or wait around for months and months in sexless limbo as she makes up her mind whether to hump them one more time at some unspecified future date.]

Also, I highly doubt an alpha female will share.

[As alpha females are the ones that are usually on the arms of alpha males, it stands to reason that plenty of alpha females share lovers.]

So, in short, this post isn’t really limited to the sexes; betas of either side will happily share an alpha.

[Incorrect. This is mostly a woman thang, if for no other reason than that alpha females rarely, if ever, choose to keep multiple beta boyfriends. It just isn’t in most women’s natures to keep a male sexual harem.]

women should distance themselves emotionally from anyone that isn’t providing them the consideration they need rather than give ultimatums or throw tantrums – cool, calm, graceful and dignified distance.

he can have his room to go away and she’ll have hers to attract someone who loves her enough to be there.

so while he may be free to go there is nothing saying she should remain captive to him in the meanwhile.

This reminds me of the famous essay “On Polygamy” by David Lane (a noted racist, but that doesn’t exclude him from getting something else right). He describes men as divided into three groups – Jarls (alphas), Karls (betas) and Thralls (omegas), where the Jarls have multiple women, the Karls one each and the Thralls have none.

Lane writes a deal of nonsense about Jarls needing to provide exceptional service to the people (well, he uses the word folk) to deserve it, and objects to the modern celebrity and politician getting multiple women. That’s just the usual bleating of the guy who wanted to be an alpha and failed, of course.

But the core point – that some women will prefer to be one of many women for an alpha, and others will choose to be the sole woman of a beta – seems fully valid to me; this obviously leaves the omega with nothing, but, well, c’est ça.

By overtly recognising the alpha, overt poly relationships will drive the women who want a man to themselves to pick from the best of the betas, giving the provider beta back a place that he has lost.

And, of course, there are women who are into polyandry – I know a few, mostly they’re pretty high-testosterone types, and rarely much more than a 6, but they do exist.

… and alternative sexualities (not just gay, but bi and trans and some of the BDSMers and others) are even more complicated.

I too enjoyed the Story of O and was baffled by her behavior. Not anymore! This little Ole blog from DCaxis
has carved new neurons into my wanting brain and I stand shedding beta pounds by the nanosecond…

As to the whining of non-roissy posts, my, my, isn’t there an age/generation gap amongst the cacaphony ;-)

[They’ll happily dump a fuck in her, but they won’t happily provide for her or promise to help raise her bastard spawn or wait around for months and months in sexless limbo as she makes up her mind whether to hump them one more time at some unspecified future date.]

whoa whoa whoa R – isn’t the latter the very definition of the oft-chided beta orbiter?

[Editor: Is the beta orbiter happy? Is he in love? Lust, sure, but love? The difference is that female concubines are getting laid and don’t mind sharing one man *even when there are other options (other men) available*. Beta orbiters tend to orbit because they have no other avenues of pussy to pursue.
Also, how many men are truly comfortable and willing to share an alpha woman they’re fucking with other men? It’s a couple of orders of magnitude lower than the number of women willing to share an alpha man they’re fucking.
PS: Of course, the above is strictly theoretical. Most alpha females aren’t going to have a stable of concurrent male sex partners. Women, especially high value women, don’t function that way.]

I date multiple women, openly. They know of each other either by asking me or seeing the women post on Facebook.

People ask if I’m polyamorous. No, I’m not. I make good money, travel 2-4 times a month for pleasure, have a nice loft and car and connections in many cities for good food, etc, and I’m a rocket in the sack even at 37.

When I start seeing someone new and they ask if I’m seeing anyone, I say yes. If they asked if it’s serious, I show them my ring finger. Women don’t care usually. The 9s and 10s do, because they can’t handle a prettier competitor or a less pretty competitor.

I’ve dated outside of monogamy for 20 years. I don’t understand trying to get all my needs fulfilled from one supplier. I also shop at 50 different stores, listen to hundreds of different bands, appreciate different actors, etc.

That being sad, I dump women more often for complaining about other guys than any other reason.

To be trapped with only one grocery store or restaurant would be tough. To be trapped with only one woman would be death.

The author is researching ‘utilitarian hedonism’, so not your typical religious chick.
What is utilitarian hedonism, you may ask? It’s the belief that you should maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Her thought process was probably, I’ll be miserable without him, so I’ll wait for him.

Editor: “How many men are truly comfortable and willing to share an alpha female…”

I don’t look at it as sharing at all. I’m not their guy on the couch eating Pringles and ice cream, listening to them whine about work and taking their ill mannered mutt on long walks in the Chicago winters. Let a gal have her orbiters and her weaker love toys. I go out with them for my sake and I let them know it. I find women with guys or husbands or a trio of weaker alphas or betas in her stable makes my life easier.

I promise them nothing but I expect them to skip work, family and their other guys when I call. If they don’t, they’re replaceable. In every city in America there are 100 7 women to every one of me. Maybe 5x that, who knows. Build a reputation as a guy who dumps a gal for the slightest infraction and their friends will come calling.

Hell, through Facebook alone I get 5 friend requests a week from decent-enough looking friends of the women I mock openly. I bet my female:male friend ratio is easily 8:1 and I end up having a warm bed to sleep in (plus the benefits) in every major city in the world. I will never disparage Facebook as a great tool to make women want to meet me — and when they see that most of my “friends” are women, it just makes them that much more curious.

I don’t share women, I expect them to have a weak man handling the duties weak men are designed to handle so I don’t have to hear a peep about it.

[Editor: Is the beta orbiter happy? Is he in love? Lust, sure, but love? The difference is that female concubines are getting laid and don’t mind sharing one man *even when there are other options (other men) available*. Beta orbiters tend to orbit because they have no other avenues of pussy to pursue.
Also, how many men are truly comfortable and willing to share an alpha woman they’re fucking with other men? It’s a couple of orders of magnitude lower than the number of women willing to share an alpha man they’re fucking.
PS: Of course, the above is strictly theoretical. Most alpha females aren’t going to have a stable of concurrent male sex partners. Women, especially high value women, don’t function that way.]

In regards to the lust vs. love question, you can apply that to the females as well as the males. Crossing the “love” threshold, IMHO, means that there was a relationship there. Otherwise, it is lust both with the beta females clinging to the alpha males as well as the beta males clinging to the alpha females.

[Editor: Nah. Women tend to get more emotionally hooked on the alphas they bang, while betas get infatuated with the whores they bang. It’s a difference in kind, not degree. Your whole argument is moot anyhow, because in the real world betas don’t share women sexually with other men. Women aren’t wired to have sexual relationships with concurrent men.]

In BOTH scenarios, the betas are NOT happy. Both orbiters would like the alphas to themselves.

[Women in veritable harems are happier on average than men in sexless arrangements, though it is not their ideal. Also, don’t confuse beta females with beta males. Beta males can’t get laid with the women they want. Beta females can’t get commitment from the alpha males they want.]

I am proud of this guy –He carries with honor the French nationality. Time has come to reintroduce the institution of polygamy. In such a way a hyper alpha male (Tiger Woods comes to my mind) could have as many wives he can game and afford. In forty years, when he passes away, his obscene fortune would be split among a dozen of wives and tens of grown sons and daughters. It makes more sense to me than having the Nanny State subsidizing single mothers and their different fathered bastards.

my ex drug-dealer brother who has done time once got caught by his long-term girlfriend – or was it fiance, or wife? i don’t know the marriage itself lasted a month or something ridiculous – having a threesome with two 16 year olds. he split the scene, leaving them all there, then came back to find his partner and one of the sixteen year olds had settled on an agreement: they could share him, because they both loved him and understood each others love for him.

Editor: They’ll happily dump a fuck in her, but they won’t happily provide for her or promise to help raise her bastard spawn or wait around for months and months in sexless limbo as she makes up her mind whether to hump them one more time at some unspecified future date.

I think you’re underestimating the lengths to which a beta will go to please a woman. For the sake of pride I’m not going to expound on this subject, but just take my word that a woman can hold the same kind of thrall over a man, that an alpha male can hold over a female.

Of course all that harem building does is create no incentives at all for Beta males to do much of anything. A society that has most women harem-ed up with a few Alpha males, is … well Muslim society. With all the wealth creation, technology, stability, and so on therein.

It’s a matter of naked sexual market value. He’s not that into her, probably for good reason, and she’s way into him, probably for good reason.

In “Fooled By Randomness” the author (Nassim Nicholas Taleb, same guy who wrote “The Black Swan”, which I haven’t read) talks about “path dependence”, or inability to change one’s mind based on new information. There is probably an element of that as well.

I think he intended to end the relationship; she was the one who volunteered to continue as the second woman, and he’s like, “Whatever, babe.” The idea that they are together is her illusion; they have a trans-Atlantic email relationship. He has such a high SMV compared to her she’s willing to hang on to this thin reed of hope. Hope is a great thing, but as some philosopher said hope makes a good breakfast but a poor dinner.

I would like to see some substantiation, by evidence or argument, of the author’s claim that a man can love more than one woman at the same time. As a man, I believe a man can be very attracted to multiple woman concurrently but I have not experienced that strong emotional bond or connection with more than one woman at a time.

[As alpha females are the ones that are usually on the arms of alpha males, it stands to reason that plenty of alpha females share lovers.]

Not if the alpha females can help it. That’s why they created Western Civilization (in conspiracy with beta males) – to restrict the alpha male love to themselves and stick the beta females with the beta males.

Women will knock over a single man in their rush to reach the penis of a man who already has several other women on the shelf.

I’ve seen it. I’m sure everyone else has. The one guy who is perennially single and the other guy with five girlfriends.

Men will have sex with any woman they find moderately attractive but they won’t invest heavily unless they can have a woman to themselves.

I believe that the fixation on female virginity and chastity in many cultures was an incentive to get men to accept serious commitment to one woman.

Now that women can follow their harem-joining instincts, they all spend their prime years sleeping with the same small number of men.

This leaves the other men with little or no incentive to invest in serious relationships.

If men can’t have women to themselves they’re more likely to bang them and leave, investing as little as possible.

Prostitutes are a good example. Lots of guys will sleep with prostitutes. Few of these guys would want serious relationships with them. Some men do try to turn a prostitute into a housewife or serious partner but they often want her to stop whoring and be faithful to them.

Traditional harems weren’t built through winning girls’ hearts but by buying them or otherwise agreeing with their parents to provide for them. It was almost entirely about wealth or wealth, family and/or caste.

The modern harem where the females individually choose their man is something new in the world.

1. Don’t call, email, text her more than she does you.
2. If you’re pining over one, find two more before seeing that one.
3. Don’t fake busy, be busy. I incubate startups for young men and I help dozens a year find side projects to truly be busy on.
4. Don’t text during the day or email between 9am and 4pm. Don’t text after 9pm either, unless it’s “bring movies.”
5. If you have time to see *one* woman twice a week, you need more guy friends. Find them.
6. Save $2 a day. Travel anywhere a cheap flight takes you and stay at cheap hotels (not hostels). Build up from $2 to more as you can. Create true stories from trips.
7. Don’t buy dinner before good sex. Don’t.
8. If a gal is in your wank bank, you can’t be friends.
9. Don’t give an ex a second chance. Don’t be passive aggressive after a breakup.
10. End dates early. The hotter the girl, the earlier the ending. The date ends when you get to her house or your house, even if she spends the night.

Beta males are both expendable and increasingly useless in a heavily technological society. Some are needed to keep the infrastructure running for now. Eventually they will be put into such a low place that they will repair the repair bots.

The Industrial revolution made everyone equal in that with machines an idiot or a genius could operate it and still produce the same thing. It created it’s own form of equality through the manufacture of goods. That bargaining power that came from labor is gone.

Watch HBO’s Big Love to get a hint for the extra managerial and drama burden the harem manager must deal with.

I regularly have to deal with doses of drama most men would not want to have in their lives. Just yesterday my girl saw some messages on my phone which made her freak out. A few weeks ago my other girl had a mental breakdown after her jealousy had no effect on controlling me or in raising her ranking.

It takes skill to handle more than one girl, and even then, sustaining deep intimacies with more than one is a challenge. I think most men would prefer a smaller challenge and less headache, in return for less drama.

It takes time to build up both the skills and drama tolerance. Then the rewards of non-monogamy for some of us can be worth the troubles.

Ladies, there is absolutely no shame in diversifying your dating portfolio. In fact, it’s highly encouraged to put your eggs into lots of different baskets while you’re a free agent, as long as you can do it without being a total dick. There is an art to dating multiple guys at once while keeping your dating karma intact.

Yo Chateau, think you can axe the game related stuff and do the race thing full time? The Mcdonald’s article probably got your best response, and that seems to be your true expertise, and after all it brought out all the real readers of this blog as well. Hell, we all need more violence don’t we? I’ll even write a volunteer article on the guidelines to curb stomping for Mistuh Firepower :)

Also, how many men are truly comfortable and willing to share an alpha woman they’re fucking with other men? It’s a couple of orders of magnitude lower than the number of women willing to share an alpha man they’re fucking.

This is true, but there are a large number number of men who would be willing to share a 9 or a 10.

Most alpha females aren’t going to have a stable of concurrent male sex partners. Women, especially high value women, don’t function that way.

The beta will have to provide something, usually a very large amount of money or access to something else the woman wants, but these situations do occur. And some men do think getting occasional sex with an unfaithful 9 or 10 in return is a fair deal.

I bring up these points not really to contradict you, but to forstall the use of these kinds of situations as evidence that women don’t care at all if an alpha cheats on them, because a lot of men would accept a relationship with a 9 or 10 who cheated on them too. No quarrel though with the fact that women tend to have a significantly higher tolerance for a partner cheating than do men.

I’ve met girls who kept several men. Some would send money every month from abroad, thinking the relationship is exclusive.

One girl would have a new fling every month or so, and when not doing serial monogamy would do parallel “monogamy”.

A few times in my life I’ve tamed raging sluts, and wrought from them the full out woman in love experience. That’s playing with fire.

Some people look at a red square and compare it to a black ball. They will tell you that the color red is associated with fidelity, and it’s best to get serious only with red squares. Other guys will explain that only balls can bounce and roll and be a blast to play all sorts of adventurous games with. There are advantages to red, and advantages to balls. Unless you want to spend a celibate life searching for unicorns, you learn to use the materials at hand. Sometimes playing with fire is the way to go, even knowing the risks of fire. Life isn’t only about the color red – it has a multivariate of colors and textures and attributes – many of which are mutually exclusive. Bouncy or stable. Fire or fidelity. Anyway, fire can be harnessed – for a time, at least.

There are plenty of dangerous girls out there, playing dangerous girl games. Yes, it is within the nature of women to tool many boys.

xsplat: balancing deep intimacy with multiple women is really tough, but manageable if you avoid women in certain markets. No bartenders, artists, Ph.D students, etc. The more “emotional” their jobs are, the more they can’t be sated emotionally. I stay away.

For me, I’ve been capable of managing pretty deep relationships with 3 gals at once. I defuse the jealousy with “I’ve always returned to you, right?” and that helps.

The key to keeping that connection with women is upping your “remember something she said last week” numbers. Don’t emphasize it, say it off-the-cuff and they’ll eat your scraps. It’s difficult but can be rewarding!

on April 25, 2011 at 11:11 pm Donn
Yo Chateau, think you can axe the game related stuff and do the race thing full time? The Mcdonald’s article probably got your best response, and that seems to be your true expertise, and after all it brought out all the real readers of this blog as well. Hell, we all need more violence don’t we? I’ll even write a volunteer article on the guidelines to curb stomping for Mistuh Firepower :)

Yo, what actual work did Chateau do besides putting it up? He didn’t even comment on the comments much? Dude is good, but he really didn’t do much on that one besides toss a bloody tampon into a pit of vampires.

Any sane society would unabashedly allow its greatest men to harbor the most women, those women each being worthy of that mighty seed. Each generation should strive to surpass the previous one and with so many alpha babies sprouting up, it is likely to be. Beta men of the world should be castrated lest they endanger society with their flaccidity.

It isn’t in a mans nature to be part of a harem. Because of a mans ability to fertilize multiple women, a women in an alpha males harem can bear the alpha males children even if the other females bear his children too. Only one man in a theoretical male harem could actually have children at any given time.

“Of course all that harem building does is create no incentives at all for Beta males to do much of anything. A society that has most women harem-ed up with a few Alpha males, is … well Muslim society. With all the wealth creation, technology, stability, and so on therein.”

And you just summed up the entire problem with giving women the majority of mate selection. As you aptly wrote, women will chose shexy men over betas, the builders and keepers of civilization any day of the week.

We are just pawns, reacting to women’s preferences. We would rather become sexy men and get laid while ignoring society than work for the upkeep of a society that neglects the positive beta traits.

Society has hosed men and we are going to hose it back in some form or fashion.

Ladies, take note, we will act however you want in order to get some vag. If that means acting like useless tanned idiots on Jersey Shore, so be it.

A complete societal overhaul is needed directed by a political strong man that will end petty bickering over trivial matters and help form a new system with a renewal of male spirit.

It’s more than sexual. It’s like when you’re on a team with an awesome coach. Even when he retires, you still go to him for guidance and leadership, especially when minds like his are rare in this world.

When you’re young and he’s young and everything’s working fine, you may express it sexually, but when life happens is when you see it goes way beyond that.

You get spoiled. Your intensity and depth bar raises, and nothing less will do. You convince yourself that it’s the circumstances, but as the years march on, it becomes apparent that it is the man.

This is why I’m a slut. I’m not proud of it, but this is what I do to get by. Unless or until I meet a guy who could stand shoulder to shoulder with him who is actually interested in me, I am in no danger of even testing the idea that anyone but him could be more than amusement…hopefully respectful amusement with some sentimental attachment, but I’ll be waiting for the newbie to fail, knowing I have one guy in my life who loves like a mini god…constant like the sun rising somewhere in the world every minute *because* the world turns, not in spite of it.

He’s my leader, and I’m his follower. What relief anyone has found in the shade next to me is only due to being in his shadow.

So I respect a woman who reserves herself under such circumstances. She may be a fool, but she’s a stronger fool than me.

It is certainly my observation that women do not care how many other women an Alpha sleeps with provided he sleeps with them, whereas if a Beta shows any inclination to wander they shame and dump. It is just a question of supply and demand. What the women who sleep with the Alphas do not seem to realise is that, at least in my estimation, they reveal themselves to be skanks, and thus lower themselves in my estimation. They then find the Alpha has passed on them and that I am not interested either. Not being of the Alpha mind-set, I put effort into just one woman, but she has to demonstrate her worth. Alpha cast-offs fall at the first hurdle.

Opus, alpha-ness, within reasonable constraints, is relative. If you are capable of being the leader in a basic social group (like a family) then you are alpha enough.

The problem with too many men is that they are no longer alpha enough because this has been battered, drugged, and shamed out of them by society.

If you’re aware and determine not to be the girl in your relationships, you shouldn’t classify yourself as beta even though you take on certain useful technically beta behaviors. That would be like deciding you’re a dog because you like meat.

Man Who Was says, “Sadly, I think you underestimate the depths of betatude out there.”

…or the team spirit of guys who don’t really need women that much.

The few polyandrous situations I know of that worked out long term all have a very dominant woman at the center who is sort of mannish. She’s an anomalous alpha female with a group of guys who might be straight, but have a Gay-ish vibe in the guy who makes you a little nervous in the locker room but would never actually do anything to you kind of way.

What makes it interesting is that this woman usually recruits other women. So it seldom stays just her with a couple of guys. She brings in spotters rather regularly.

One in Italy shares four men with her sister consistently, and they bring in spotters. Quite often, it’s a four guys, six plus women situation.

Hierarchy does come into play, but some people are just generally freaky, and arrange themselves as is comfortable for them. Not every guy needs absolute exclusivity so long as his balls are drained regularly and well.

I’m not saying this is common or should be, just that it’s an interesting situation worthy of note just in case one time in your life you encounter it. It does explain though, how men are basically willing to share a high status (read hot) woman. It’s about comparitive value and individual needs.

The guys in the Italian woman’s team don’t want a woman hanging on them all the time. They just want regular sex with someone who gives half a damn about them, and understands their needs well enough to be cool with variety and still validate them. If I had to describe their relationship, it’s like she’s their perverted sister.

One also has to consider that there is currently a shortage of decent women. Though she may not be decent in the chaste sense, she seems to be one of those women who is very tough, but still respectful of men…maybe because she is sort of manly.

If it’s a choice between a woman who doesn’t want to exploit you and keeps herself fit, and is adventurous, and other women who let themselves go and don’t want to have sex after you marry them…Often mating is an expedience thing that only gets sentimental after the fact.

Of all the Obama urban legends floating about, this one seems most plausible to me. I wouldn’t believe it for certain until the DNA was in, but the resemblence is uncanny. If I saw them together, I’d assume they were closely related.

Women can share a single man because the identity of fatherhood isn’t in doubt. Multiple men sharing a woman leads to Maury. It’s sickening because of a natural, healthy hatred of incest. You can’t know your brothers and sisters if you don’t know who your father is.

Women would rather share a successful man than be saddled with a faithful loser

– POOK.

It all comes back to The Cardinal Rule of Relationships In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. If you’re coming from a position of confidence in your own value in your LTR, your wife/GF will be a willing participant in your flirtations. It’s ego-gratifying for a woman to think that she’s the only one who’ll tame the sexual animal that other women want. It reflects well upon her that she has the interest of a desirable Man.

For women, who’s primary concern is security, it seems counterintuitive to instill a sense of insecurity. This is a very common mistake that most betas make; they grossly overestimate the value security has for a woman to the point that they smother her in it. They presume that a steady, loyal, dependability ensures her continued appreciation of it. What they fail to realize is that familiarity, comfort and security are anti-seductive. The sexual being that aroused her to urgent marathon sex while single, gradually turns into a warm stuffed animal she can cry into and then leave on the bed.

Women want financial, provisional, family and emotional security; they do not want sexual security – despite any protestation of the opposite. Women want a Man that other men want to be and other women want to fuck. And she needs a constant reminding of this. Women don’t want a Man to cheat, but they LOVE a Man who could cheat.

Women crave the chemical rush that comes from suspicion and indignation. If you don’t provide it, they’ll happily get it from tabloids, romance novels, The View, Tyra Banks or otherwise living vicariously through their single girlfriends and extramarital affairs. In the prolonged absence of drama and indignation women will find it or create it for themselves. This is why you flirt, or at least flirt back when prompted by another woman.

Xsplat, what??? A woman going through your texts and freaking out should be instant NEXT. A woman having psychotic episodes or emotional breakdowns, directed at you and your choices in life? WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR.

Seriously, walk out and disengage until she apologizes. You DO have other female prospects, male friends, work projects and hobbies to be spending your energy on, right? Right??

Sexing multiple females at the same time ain’t for all men because it comes with a lot of drama. They may come to accept the situation, but before they do, at least one of them is gonna park out side your house and catch you coming home with the other one. The shouting match at 1 in the morning? the police are knocking on your door?

Do you want that?

Never underestimate what a female will do to get your attention (and remind the other female that you are seeing someone else)

The only way I know to minimize the female drama in this situation is to make the females compete NOt with each other for your attention, but to make them all compete with a “thing” for your attention.

This is how the artists are able to get away with it. He makes the females compete with his guitar instead of each other.

As long as the females are focusing on each other, you are going to have problems.

By making them focus on the “thing” that really consumes your attention, you not only engage in a known alpha trait, but you get to play your guitar when ever you want with no static from which ever female you happen to be with.

If one of the girls drops him, the other will immediately follow suit. then he would not be desirable by women anymore is the most propable conclusion of the other.

Your intuition is great. When there are two girls, they are each playing a game of seeing who has the most patience. The remaining girl won’t leave the guy until she again finds out that he has a new 2nd.

It contains a small picture of her. Her unlisted BA degree comes from Messiah College, a private Christian college in Pennsylvania. Her Philosophy Ph.D is from NYU (red flag) and her scholarship comes from a paper titled: “What Do Our Intuitions about the Experience Machine Really Tell Us about Hedonism?.” It gets better when you read her profile:
—-
I am currently conducting research in a few related areas. I continue to develop a version of moral realism based on the property of intrinsic goodness’ being identical to (and not merely supervenient upon) a particular phenomenal property, one we might alternatively call “pleasantness”. In addition, I am working on defending the hedonistic utilitarianism implied by this metaethical view, and I am also very interested in utopian thought, past and present, as a way of exploring how hedonistic utilitarianism might best be practiced.
—-
Anyone else seeing what I’m seeing?

Also, this is her first article for Salon. It says this in her Salon profile:
“She is currently working on a memoir about spiritual doubt.”
Sad how the pleasure of French ALPHA cock can induce spiritual doubt.

Quote:
Robert Nozick’s experience machine thought experiment is often considered a decisive refutation of hedonism. I argue that the conclusions we draw from Nozick’s thought experiment ought to be informed by considerations concerning the operation of our intuitions about value. First, I argue that, in order to show that practical hedonistic reasons are not causing our negative reaction to the experience machine, we must not merely stipulate their irrelevance (since our intuitions are not always responsive to stipulation) but fill in the concrete details that would make them irrelevant. If we do this, we may see our feelings about the experience machine becoming less negative. Second, I argue that, even if our feelings about the experience machine do not perfectly track hedonistic reasons, there are various reasons to doubt the reliability of our anti-hedonistic intuitions. And finally, I argue that, since in the actual world seeing certain things besides pleasure as ends in themselves may best serve hedonistic ends, hedonism may justify our taking these other things to be intrinsically valuable, thus again making the existence of our seemingly anti-hedonistic intuitions far from straightforward evidence for the falsity of hedonism.

“*How do you know he is an alpha male?, some of you are probably asking. We know because he has two women in love with him, and at least one of them has agreed to become a de facto member of his nascent harem. Or: it’s self-evident, Sherlock.”

Without ever seeing what either woman looks like you can’t call him an alpha male.

“Fine, go with her! I know you’ll get tired of her and come back to me in a few months, she’s just like the others!”

An ex-lover when I told her I wouldn’t see her any more because I was getting serious with another girl. The ex is very attractive and has a lot of men going after her, but she was willing to wait it out for me rather date another man. The few times I saw her after that, she was practically falling over herself trying to please me.

“Of course all that harem building does is create no incentives at all for Beta males to do much of anything. A society that has most women harem-ed up with a few Alpha males, is … well Muslim society. With all the wealth creation, technology, stability, and so on therein.”

Always thought that the Beta would take the pent up frustration and create wealth, art, technology… seems as though Whiskey’s right. We’re doomed if this harem pattern continues…

“Beta males are both expendable and increasingly useless
in a heavily technological society. Some are needed
to keep the infrastructure running for now.
Eventually they will be put into such a low place
that they will repair the repair bots.

The Industrial revolution made everyone equal
in that with machines an idiot or a genius could
operate it and still produce the same thing.
It created it’s own form of equality through
the manufacture of goods. That bargaining power
that came from labor is gone.”

Oh no. You are very confused here, but then, most
people are. Part of it is your definition of “beta”.
Many people on this blog are or used to be “provider
betas”, i.e. people with above average (even MUCH
above average) intelligence, typically having a decent
income from something (not necessarily a steady job),
etc.

What is true in the industrial revolution is that having
merely a strong physique does not cut it (but
is useful in many jobs PROVIDED that you also
know what your are doing, think construction jobs
for example).

Fact of the matter is (and this is an observation,
NOT a value judgment in either direction) is that jobs
requiring minimal smarts are getting automated
or outsourced. This is not new, the process
has been going on for 200 years, but it is becoming
more acute.

Thus, your description above applies to the
under 100 IQ crowd. Those with 120 + IQ are
by and large doing OK (your mileage may vary).
It may well be true that the cutoff point is creeping
up, however, I am not sure.

And the statement that “the industrial revolution
made everybody equal” is pure tommyrot.
Quite the opposite, it created premium wages
(or equivalent) for those who could run, design,
facilitate, manage etc. But the firm grip of the
landed gentry weakened. So the old elite was
partially replaced by a new elite. That tension
is still there and visible, especially in the UK.

Of all the Obama urban legends floating about,
this one seems most plausible to me. I wouldn’t believe
it for certain until the DNA was in, but the resemblance
is uncanny. If I saw them together, I’d assume
they were closely related.”

AND/OR Obama was gestated in a vat and decanted,
Brave New World style, thus no “birth” in the
normal sense.

This post goes a long way towards explaining why a woman can be so beastly hard to get rid of. I mean, if openly being with another woman and expressing a preference for her does not slow down the cock-craving that her predecessor has for you, what chance have you got of a clean break??

it’s second nature to men to leak the infidelity facts very slowly, but remember the 3:1 fire to smoke ratio. when the whole devastating truth comes out (girl 3! and…oh my god, girl 4!), it will be a true test of her harem bonafides.

This is nonsense. The girl is just desperate setting herself up for being disrespected. Every woman naturally wants to be the only one. The best chance for the relationship to survive in any meaningful form is for her to break up with him immediately, preferably texting something like….yeah, let’s just be friends. Depending on her level of attractiveness there is a variable chance she may be receiving a call within two hours asking her to reconsider. You just can’t be afraid of losing a guy.

Many women feel like they really need loving and sensual touch desperately, but in order to get it, they have to pay with sex.

Betar detectors are blaring…

We do not accept the banknotes of the Feminist Confederacy. When the bill comes due for our affections, you must pay with sex.

The last paragraph of course happens quite naturally after paying in hard currency.

LMAO. Quite honestly I do not require sex with each incident of contact, but are you kidding me?

It may lead to sex, but then it also might not be. If she feels that she can relax to enjoy a massage without any ‘obligations’, she might relax so much that she will actually want sex herself. If she doesn’t, well, give it to her as a gift without any strings attached.

How about some babe just bangs me no questions asked? It might lead to cuddling or even a second date, but then, doesn’t it feel good to do a feller a favor?

“Now that women can follow their harem-joining instincts, they all spend their prime years sleeping with the same small number of men.

This leaves the other men with little or no incentive to invest in serious relationships.”

How do you think Mohammed evolved four wives as property for himself and faithful buddies while forcing all the other losers who couldn’t get dates to die for the “72 virgins”… a system so solid it works today (although nothing else in that culture does).

“”Women don’t want a Man to cheat, but they LOVE a Man who could cheat.

Women crave the chemical rush that comes from suspicion and indignation. If you don’t provide it, they’ll happily get it from tabloids, romance novels, The View, Tyra Banks or otherwise living vicariously through their single girlfriends and extramarital affairs. In the prolonged absence of drama and indignation women will find it or create it for themselves. This is why you flirt, or at least flirt back when prompted by another woman.””

As always Rollo nails it.

Girl I’m seeing is constantly being hit on by guys and eats up the attention. But the second i get a look, she fumes. I now do it just to get that rise and then feign total ignorance if she brings it up.

We went to a party the other night.

Some slimy older beta guy who had hit on her while she had DJ’d a few nights prior came in. His eyes lit up and he came over to greet her with that Italian/Spanish kiss on the cheek.

I sat there smiling. He looked at her with that desperate beta wide-eyed look and leaned in to kiss her nervously on the other cheek.

To some what one might call the whore nature seems to come naturally. Without real judgement, since it’s probably a reasonable evolutionary strategy to make many weak friendships by freely screwing the multitude and extracting favours from it. Particularly valid, at a guess, when the alpha turnover rate is high.

“The only way I know to minimize the female drama in this situation is to make the females compete NOt with each other for your attention, but to make them all compete with a “thing” for your attention.

This is how the artists are able to get away with it. He makes the females compete with his guitar instead of each other.”

@ margaret
ideally that’d be the response but i think most women would settle for being #1 / main girl ie. he has them on the side but shows love and public consideration for her, esp. if he’s a man w/ any amount of finesse and charm

“Just one night before Sheen delivered his break-up news, he was onstage in Tampa pleading for support in resuming his lucrative sitcom career. Comic Jeffrey Ross was on hand with roast-style zingers like, “You made your dad ashamed to share the same fake name with you,” (Martin Sheen’s original surname is Estevez) and a crack about Hosni Mubarek having better odds of getting his job back.”

“”I’ve met girls who kept several men. Some would send money every month from abroad, thinking the relationship is exclusive.””

Yup, and this is why I don’t get involved at all with the South Asian domestic helper set that so many guys in Asia seem to drift towards because of the low-hanging fruit they provide.

Two stories….the woman who cuts my hair told me about one of her Filipina friends, a super hot, tall, slim stunner who had somehow married up and was invovled with this beta provider expat.

But she of course dumped hubby for a French guy lover, also a banker with a lot of money. Beta hubby was crushed.

Then suddenly and tragically French guy lover had a brain hemmorage leaving him incapacitated and unable to work.

Guess what? Stunner suddenly decides to have a reconciliation with husband.

The other story is one of a pilot who got involved with stunner Filipina in Hong Kong. He left his expat wife and kids to try to “win” her…

But she got him to give her money to keep her in her prerferred lifestyle. But she could never “commit” to him because she had a bloke in the US who was also sending her money and had a rule where he would call her at a certain time of the day at his home in Hong Kong.

The rule was if she didn’t answer, she was cut off…

I think in both those cases, the relationship these women had with the men was exclusive…on the men’s parts.

For whatever reason, these women have a tremendous hold on guys who all their lives have never had any hot female attention.

These women regardless of the poverty they grew up in are sharp enough to know how to play these poor saps and keep them on the hook while they go on and rationalize their need to do so because the guys aren’t able to give them what they need financially.

Yes, that could happen. But then there would be no men left to teach betas what females really wanted. I mean, the absence of true alphas do not make betas into alphas by default. Someone must guide them to the light.
In the absence of that happening, the bitch would still would not want to have sex with you any more than was necessary to snag your hard earned resources.

As one who spends much of the year here, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen that movie. Stupid betas with a Western mindset, completely unaware of how SEA works.

I bang a number of women who “get support” (as the girls call it) from Westerners who visit their “girlfriend” here 3-4 times per year. In fact, in one of those surreal moments any SEA regular will relate to, I actually had a girl take a pre-scheduled call from her British “honeyko” just as I ejaculated inside her.

I share this info without even a shred of sorrow for the stupid betas, as they completely deserve it. As a Thai girl said to me once, “Most of the falang are so stupid, and they have too much money. If we don’t take that money from them, then we’re as stupid as them.”

What holds me back from being a happy harem member of an alpha male is that you are pitied and looked down upon by a lot of people . . . they communicate that you’re “not respecting yourself” and should demand an ultimatum or leave, blah blah blah. It’s the social censure, not the actual sharing, that is humiliating.

But I cannot be happy with a beta boyfriend. I could have plenty. And I know women far hotter than me (actual models, 9-10s) who have never been able to secure commitment/monogamy from charismatic alphas, so why the hell should I (as a 7.5-8) expect to get it?

What I want is to be part of a STABLE harem. Unfortunately because of our hangups about monogamy, the only people who combine commitment and polygamy are religious freaks.

“If the presence of alpha removes all chance of a beta copulating, and alphas are not necessarily physically superior, shouldn’t beta males conspire to kill or otherwise incapacitate alphas?”

Yes. This is why I detest the fake “alphas” that take advantage of the breakdown of civilized mating norms with their peacocking bullshit while hiding behind the civilized institutions of law and order that still remain; only with the advent of feminism is this kind of thing possible.

“Yes, that could happen. But then there would be no men left to teach betas what females really wanted. I mean, the absence of true alphas do not make betas into alphas by default. Someone must guide them to the light.
In the absence of that happening, the bitch would still would not want to have sex with you any more than was necessary to snag your hard earned resources.”

If anyone is still wondering why men “sharing” a woman is a politically-correct fairy tale…

…ponder no further:

The male identity is defined by the feminine (and vice versa). Masculinity is –by nature – that which is attractive to the feminine. Confidence, charisma, capability, power, dominance; they are all attributes that women use to screen potential mates because for thousands of years, they were indicative of men with SUPERIOR genes who were CAPABLE of PROVIDING for women.

Beta males, not displaying any of these traits, directly subvert the reproductive needs of women. Women in relationships who have to deal with beta-backsliding or perpetual AFCism leave because they were naturally programmed to abhor pushovers and giant vaginas. Avoiding men who are beta has ALWAYS been an integral part of the female genetic script. If you just got LJBFed by the girl who you were “in love with,” blame yourself more than her.

Men have never needed protection / nourishment, that’s OUR role. Biologically speaking, we only need women to have our children. The most valued trait in a girl, by her boyfriend, is loyalty. In the modern era, where we are forced to settle in monogamous relationships, we ALSO value things like intelligence, interesting hobbies, etc. If you know you have to settle for one girl, you want to make sure you won’t be compelled to drown her in a bowl of cereal after living with her for a couple of years.

Sluts subvert the reproductive needs of men. If they fuck other guys or aren’t likely to remain loyal, their boyfriends / husbands won’t be passing on any genes to the next generation.

What harem pattern. Women are still marrying – just later in life. And while the american dream is realistically not attainable for the majority of men, most still strive for it.

The idea of the beta drone not producing due to lack of sexual incentive is weak. People at minimum produce to feed clothe and house themselves. Those that contribute more substantially are still incentivised. Money still buys pussy.

If some big percentage of men want to jack off to porn and play video games after work, society doesn’t give any more of a crap about them than they do.

In Indonesia, a man doesn’t expect to be able to attract a mate until he is financially established, with a house and a car. It’s expected he’ll have to wait until at least 24 – sometimes much later. Some of these men will remain virgins while they establish their provider potential.

Parallel to this system, some men attract many women through charisma. The popular DJ will be swimming in poon.

Women in the west are also making men establish cred and wait many painful years before marrying them. And while they make em wait, they fuck the DJs. Now, men might PREFER to marry a virgin, and earlier in life, but don’t try to tell me that men are not incentivized ENOUGH to get that car and house in order to attract the woman.

People who are angry at feminism should try out a culture where there is no feminism. You would be surprised. Women marry based on what you can give them, and then they don’t put out much, and they expect to run the household like a matron. I doubt that is really the dream life you had in mind.

This post goes a long way towards explaining why a woman can be so beastly hard to get rid of. I mean, if openly being with another woman and expressing a preference for her does not slow down the cock-craving that her predecessor has for you, what chance have you got of a clean break??

I’ve taken on a strict utilitarian approach to exes. I put them to whatever good use I can.

One girl I broke up with a few years ago. Couldn’t get rid of her and she remains infatuated with me. I put her to work as a personal assistant and occasionally demand a blow job. She sometimes cooks or cleans if no other girl is available. Another I broke up with, but she refused to stop seeing me. Fine. I started seeing other girls and called her at my whim. Another went nuts with jealousy and insecurity and then became stalkerish. I’m putting her to the task of getting girls for threesomes into my bed.

If the girls are going to hang on, let em. I’ll manage the situation as a human resources manager would. Each according to their skills and inspirations. They’ll be put to some good use.

These women regardless of the poverty they grew up in are sharp enough to know how to play these poor saps and keep them on the hook while they go on and rationalize their need to do so because the guys aren’t able to give them what they need financially.

Rationalize? That assumes that a woman is not an orange. Women don’t have a unified ego – they are segmented, like an orange. They are happy to live with internal contradictions. They don’t have morals, like men do. They don’t systematize their facts into a unified worldview. Therefore they have no need to rationalize bad behaviour to themselves. They only rationalize when put on the spot and asked to use words to explain how their actions are just. Internally, there is no dillema.

Also, you have far too high an opinion of properly bred and raised females. You think that the nature of SEA females is not the universal nature of females.

In fact, in one of those surreal moments any SEA regular will relate to, I actually had a girl take a pre-scheduled call from her British “honeyko” just as I ejaculated inside her.

A common experience in Thailand. It happens so frequently guys stop counting. Kinda like after you habitually date more than one girl, you stop counting the number of times you have sex with more than one on the same day. The first time is a big deal.

Yup – girls get off on fucking while chatting to their boyfriends. They also get off on chatting to their mothers and sisters while fucking. The latter seems to be some sort of status thing.

@xsplatwalawala
Rationalize? That assumes that a woman is not an orange. Women don’t have a unified ego – they are segmented, like an orange.

This is brilliant. And true.

They are happy to live with internal contradictions. They don’t have morals, like men do.

This is also true. It’s how they can live with massive contradictions all the time.

They don’t systematize their facts into a unified worldview. Therefore they have no need to rationalize bad behaviour to themselves. They only rationalize when put on the spot and asked to use words to explain how their actions are just. Internally, there is no dillema.

My experience mirrors this.

Also, you have far too high an opinion of properly bred and raised females. You think that the nature of SEA females is not the universal nature of females.

@xsplatIn fact, in one of those surreal moments any SEA regular will relate to, I actually had a girl take a pre-scheduled call from her British “honeyko” just as I ejaculated inside her.

A common experience in Thailand. It happens so frequently guys stop counting. Kinda like after you habitually date more than one girl, you stop counting the number of times you have sex with more than one on the same day. The first time is a big deal.
Yup – girls get off on fucking while chatting to their boyfriends. They also get off on chatting to their mothers and sisters while fucking. The latter seems to be some sort of status thing.

I’ve been with married women, fucking or relaxing, and hearing them tell me how much they detest their husbands or how they hate having to open their legs for their BF or how their BF never does X or Y, while I just exhausted myself with her.

I’ve been with women as they “worked late” or “went on vacation with the girls” (I.E. spent the entire weekend having sex with me). I’ve seen the BS stories they tell their friends/BFs/husbands.

I’ve learned

1) Never trust women who just go to travel with friends. They’re going on sex quests. Men who trust women on women-only holidays are stupid. Under no circumstances believe a word she says. I’ve heard the stories from the other side too often to ever trust any woman implicitly. All women should have to prove their faithfulness. They’re no more faithful than men. This goes exactly as much for the suburban housewife – if not more – as it does for the lawyer cunt.

2) Women think and will say things while riding one man they’d never say to anyone in public, or even close friends. Their real natures become evident most when you’re pounding them into submission when their husband doesn’t know.

3) Women are unbelievably capricious in ways men can rarely ever understand. The most well-mannered married woman with everything to lose will, when the right buttons are pushed, fuck with wild abandon. And she’ll do it without the tiniest bit of remorse. She rationalizes and justifies everything. Men won’t excuse their own flings; women will. be warned:
Trust. But verify.

4) Women ALWAYS blame the man in their life for everything. The woman is never, ever, ever responsible for her actual actions. This is the running theme of all female morality: Shifting blame.

As I try to manage my tiny little harem, I have this to say to say about women:

They rationalize everything. At all times. They can spin stories in their own brains that may or may not have anything to do with reality. It’s enough just for men to be able to keep up with the flailing exceptions and the batshit crazy notions.

Sometimes it works FOR you: You get to keep a stable of a few absurdly hot women who think they’re the Bomb because of You. Women are bizarre this way.

Sometimes, they fuck around on you and hold you in the vilest contempt each and every day.

“”In Indonesia, a man doesn’t expect to be able to attract a mate until he is financially established, with a house and a car. It’s expected he’ll have to wait until at least 24 – sometimes much later.””

The fact is that these women from these SEA countries know how to game men better than men can game them.

You need to be firm otherwise you end up playing by her rules: that is paying them some type of allowance. I know guys here in Hong Kong who “hire” their Filipina and Indonesian girlfriends as domestic helpers to ensure 1) they’re close and 2) they’re somehow indentured. But ultimately they’re still PAYING to have them around….idiots

I banged several HOT Filipina and Indonesian women. I never paid any type of “allowance” or “coffee money” or whatever they call it.

I was banging a hot Indonesian girl living and working in Singapore. She shit-tested…”Oh…I maxed out my credit card…my mom is so angry with me…” “Oh, I lost my job…”

My response…”You’re smart, you’ll find another one…..”

Or “Yah, it’s the recession, things are tough all over, do you think you could help me out?”

In the case of the Filipinas, they had “boyfriends” who funded them, but I was fun, made it clear I wasn’t a sap and so they accepted that as fuck-buddy status.

They have their own rules: but paying for anything under any kind of rationalization is something I wouldn’t do.

“Women in the west are also making men establish cred and wait many painful years before marrying them. And while they make em wait, they fuck the DJs. Now, men might PREFER to marry a virgin, and earlier in life, but don’t try to tell me that men are not incentivized ENOUGH to get that car and house in order to attract the woman.”

Avg cost of house in USA = well over $200-K with mortgage payments

Avg cost of new car = well over $25-K with car payments

Spending well over 225-K (car + house) for past-prime woman = not smart. Don’t forget that a lot of wives spend their hubbies money, deny him sex at every opportunity.

There are lots of attractive prostitutes 18-25 in the world who will sleep with ANY guy for less than $100. Do the math.

Some guys work hard to acquire assets to impress women but only end up like the Pittsburg shooter, George Sodini, wondering why they can’t get an attractive woman to marry them.

Slowly, secretly, they resent the man more and more for not leading and dominating the relationship.

I really do wonder how many “arguments” are just the woman wanting to cajole some dominating characteristics out of a man.

~

In fact, to expand on what your so correctly saying, when you think of it, Feminism is the shit test OF ALL SHIT TESTS…

Consider –

Why do you suppose that any woman that is shown in the media says that women really like nice guys that compliment them and share housework? This is a test! Women want men. They doubly want men who act like men naturally. The triply want men who act like men even in the face of social pressure to not act like men. The reason for this is the man who can maintain his masculinity even in the face of the feminism industrial complex is more likely to pass on his manly traits than a man who acts manly only when it is socially acceptable to do so. The most coveted prize among females is the male outlier, the alpha man who does what he wants and damns what anyone else says about it. …

This is the basis for the most elaborate manhood test in history.

Women project their personality onto men. They assume that since they will do that the media tells them that men will as well. But they don’t do this in the hopes that men will listen. Indeed they do it in the hopes that men wont listen. The manly man who has shrugged off all the feminist brainwashing in defiance of everything is that much greater a prize in the female hind brain. In fact this screening is necessary considering present social trends. Thousands of years of monogamy and state protection of the patriarchal family has caused the gene pool to select for safe stable “nice guys” or if you prefer “provider betas”. For the most part women pretty much had no choice in the matter. Now the patriarchal family has been cut to shreds and primal female sexuality is not only free but protected from the consequences of its own excess by an activist state. …

Enter the media manhood test. In fact I think you can make a compelling argument that feminism itself is the greatest manhood test of all time.

The only point of marriage is to provide a stable environment for MY children. “My children” means my biological offspring produced by ejaculating in the vagina.

Other than that the only thing women are good for is fucking.

Given

Option A: Share a woman with other men. Woman is middle. Has already been around the block, hymen long broken, eggs dried up or drying. Have to pay for said privilege with a mortgage and car payments. Plus put up with her bitch bullshit.

OR

Option B: Share a tight young less-than-$100 whore pussy with other men. Fuck it when I want, and ignore it when I want.

I’d choose option “B”. Only reason to marry the ‘done-having-fun’ types would be if you really wanted to have kids and they were still young enough to breed. Other than that, why bother? I don’t need companionship from a woman or a man, for that matter. I can get the same bullshit from female relatives I can’t have sex with.

Where the crap hell did you get that anecdote for Indonesia, xsplat? Indonesia is a relatively poor nation and if that anecdote were true then it would have bugger-all people in it. In reality that nation has almost 240 million packed into a small chain of islands.

There may be incentives to thrive and acquire money and resources, but none for marriage to an old hag, maybe you like cougars or “experienced” women for LTR but for me and any thinking man, experienced women are fuckbuddies, and young and worthy women for children (And yes I understand perfectly there are almost no worthy ones because all the reasons explained before).

Gil, true, not all families own a car. Many people do live in coconut grove villages with footpaths into the compounds. Ox carts are still used.

But city life is different. I got the anecdote directly from a man I met. He explained nearly exactly as I explained. He said he was not even looking for a wife yet – he felt he needed to be more materially established first. And he already had a house and budding new business!

Indonesia is not as poor as people imagine. The coconut grove class are not really counted. The real people have middle class values, and middle class expectations.

Whiskey says:
***A society that has most women harem-ed up with a few Alpha males, is … well Muslim society. ***

name the particular Muslim country in which this pattern occurs, so I can look up what you mean exactly.

Because I have been living in the UAE, and all of the Muslim people that I interact with and observe (they are economically equivalent to low and middle classes), what you described is not the case… they are all locked up in life long monogamous marriages. Though I also don’t interact at all with the high class and upper middle class people, -some- of these do practice polygamy (and the rich ones do for sure) there are also high divorce rates among upper middle class people apparently.
The reasons behind the poverty are mostly political and barely have anything with a lack of -sexual- incentive for single betas, but I won’t be getting into that.

Plus you are misunderstanding the goals and appeal of Islam, or organized religion for that matter..
they all have some strict gender roles enforced (which oppresses both men and women) to secure women a life long alpha who is also a provider, at the expense of people who don’t want to be molded into breeders (homosexuals, asexual betas, etc).
So basically you can say it is a society with too many Alphas and not enough betas (Men have a higher status than women of their social circle solely by virtue of being born men).

Ideally,when Islam makes polygamous relationships -legal- it decreases the incentive to get into one, because of all of the costs and commitment necessary to get into a marriage, as opposed to the easy and always available option of cheating in the west, a poor or middle classed man would prefer to focus on making the quality of life in his monogamous marriage better by focusing on more wholesome things like work or manly hobbies instead of ogling women. meanwhile, the rich are more inclined to cheat anyway, because they have everything yet want something more, and fathers normally wont give away their young daughter as a second wife unless they are too desperate (or the girl’s guardians give her away if she is an orphan) so it is a win/win situation for the rich man with too much money and the girl who needs a provider, and it is a life long one instead of the pump and dump you have overseas…

All in all, I think you are looking at Islam through… -feminist- lenses, yes Islam does conflict with the western ideals of freedom, it does conflict with Catholicism as well, but it is a lot more merciful to women than feminism in the long run if you ask me.

Also, what good did technological advancement and wealth bring for women anyway?
Make them into greedy materialistic bitches? Give them more free time to try new exciting activities like cheating? Allow men and women to realize (through daily interaction and the media) that there is always someone who is more alpha than their partner out there? Expose the amoral nature of women?

If one day the economy collapsed, A feminine woman who was not corrupted by greed would be happy with her characteristically alpha male in a tent, would the western feminist think the same way?

“OK, J.M. I’m not a fan of marriage myself, and have even stricter requirements for it than you do. Albeit very different requirements, sociosexually.

But you agree that this notion that world will fall apart unless women fuck betas is just a cartoonish emotional fantasy similar to Shazam, don’t you?”

Well I don´t know what your requirements are but I do know which ones I use everyday whether it´s for fun (80% of my encounters) or for something more serious.

In reference to the notion about females being forced to be fucked by betas for society´s sake; first no sane or stable society has alienated a large part of its citizens and got no payback, when such an alienation reaches a critical mass, the youth bulge of frustrated men will cause mayor problems, for a solid reference on this you can google Heinsohn’s Youth bulge theory, even though it´s not related directly to that point about betas and a dearth of sex it explains the dynamic. Second, I don´t think our society can be saved, I think we will either devolve to barbarism of yore (with modern weaponry) or shift to a transhumanist society changed beyond recognition.

By the way Gorbachev’s comments are spot on and should be a mandatory reading for those beta gullible nincopoops. (I could only believe it after being on both sides of the fence).

when such an alienation reaches a critical mass, the youth bulge of frustrated men will cause mayor problems,

I agree that we’ve got major problems. How much can be attributed to Whiskey and those in philosophical agreement not getting as laid as people with more natural charm is the debate.

There are many forms of alienation. Alienation from a big enough piece of the financial pie is the usual cause of revolutions.

Look – the beta class are doomed to desire to enforce social monogamy. They are born socially conservative. Their very sexual strategy rests on the premise of social rules and regulations. You guys can’t imagine any sexual success without a society to help you keep women doing what you want.

So when the social rules change, it’s the end of the world for you.

Guys for whom charisma comes more naturally see your end of the world as the beginning of theirs. We cheer it on, and win. Winning!

Guys with higher socio-sexual scores and more liberal and bohemian sexual attitudes never relied on being beta providers to begin with. We never wanted to marry to begin with. We saw the whole idea as a pointless prison with rectangular walls fit to hold squares.

Wherever there are losers, there are winners. Even in an economic melt-down there will be winners. Even in war there are winners.

I just find it funny how the beta class sees themselves as “really” the ubermen in all this. The real salt of the earth upholders of civilization. Funny that. What a coincidence.

No, they seek out both posers and real alphas; the lizard brain is unable to tell the difference. The former outnumber the latter. I think it’s pretty clear what most of the posters around here are, if they’re not “betas.”

But no, it doesn’t make me feel better at all, actually. I get that nothing is equal and nature and all that, but fake alphas/PUAs are cheaters that only get away with their bullshit because we live in a degenerate hell hole.

Tairos, you have a world view where being attractive to women doesn’t automatically make a man “alpha”. I operate under the assumption that the definition of alpha is only related to what women find attractive.

Women search out quality men. True, some women will have unrefined tastes. Some are going to listen to pop music and prefer KFC to Chef Pierres Chicken Surprise.

However flawed women are at choosing quality, that’s what they do, sexually. Quality is defined not by anything other than by what women choose. If women want men to grow large antlers, we’ll grow large antlers.

If women want social charisma, men will grow social charisma.

You can call it fake. If women are fucking fake, then fake is the new fit.

And if you look around you, the guys who get laid, get married and have kids, with the hottest and most intelligent and attractive women ARE the cream of the male crop.

Your world view is still far too optimistic. Ponder for a while the fact that females have never been any different in their hind-brains than they are now. It is only nowadays with unprecedented female empowerment that they could get away with expressing it. In other words, it is not just the present that we were lied about but the past as well.
There never was time of stand-up alpha dudes living righteously and bravely and being rewarded for this by the love of a good woman. Even in the good old days, the women got wetter for con-artists and blackjack dealers than whatever guy was white knighting on her behalf. It is just that she knew back then to hide it better. So she could eat, etc.
Once, but no more.

It doesn’t. An alpha is a hierarchical status distinction, defined by your place on the social ladder. Getting laid doesn’t make you an alpha, but rather being an alpha gets you laid. The approval of women may follow being an alpha, but their opinion has nothing to do with making you one.

An alpha has actual status, as in someone who actually has power, money, prestige, etc.

[Editor: Tell it to the underemployed bike messenger who’s banging hot emo chicks the CEO can only dream of.]

Like, a senator, or a high powered businessman or something. A fake alpha knows how to fool the impoverished female hind brain into thinking he has status, even if he actually doesn’t.

[A fake alpha female knows how to fool the impoverished male hind brain into thinking she has good looks, with makeup, fashion and exercise, even if in her “natural” state she actually doesn’t.]

They are not the same thing. The very idea that womanizing makes you an alpha on par with the movers and shakers of society is laughable.

[Sorry to burst your bubble, but it does. At least in the Darwinian sense.]

As the Senator watches thru a key hole his wife ride the cock of a fake alpha to multiple orgasms (which she never had with him) what would “real alpha” mean at that point? Sure, he could have the guy killed but could he unlearn the lesson?

Consider again how sexual selection creates the definition of status in males of all species. The antler is one example. It is status only because women say it is.

There are millions of other examples.

If women say that “fake” social charms are attractive, then they are attractive. Whatever is attractive is status. Women create what is status.

Pre-selection may be about “trickery” of female group mind. Game may be about faking “real” status. If so, trickery and fakery are skills that are really and truly valuable and a marker of status WITH WOMEN.

You can have your own parallel system of what is status, and your own definitions of it, but when it comes down to women, unless you are raping them, what they choose is the only valid viewpoint.

“There are many forms of alienation. Alienation from a big enough piece of the financial pie is the usual cause of revolutions. ”

Well I think it´s an understatement that the frustrated young men I was refering to would suffering both forms of alienation, specially under a burdensome tax system bent on stealing from their pockets their hard earned cash.

“Look – the beta class are doomed to desire to enforce social monogamy. They are born socially conservative. Their very sexual strategy rests on the premise of social rules and regulations.”

No one disagree with this.

“Guys with higher socio-sexual scores and more liberal and bohemian sexual attitudes never relied on being beta providers to begin with. We never wanted to marry to begin with. We saw the whole idea as a pointless prison with rectangular walls fit to hold squares.”

You can be liberal and traditional in your approach to life at the same time, liberal in your dating approach (you can fuck and dump the gals you can get) and apply the tradtional common sense (don’t get involved in LTRs with cougars and other types of über-experienced women, not out of a purity pov, but self-preservation (no rings, no alimonies, no children for them). Whether you accept it or not marriage was by far the best deal society had to create incentives for men to invest heavily in parenting the next generation of boys, thus enabling the hi-tech knowledge based civ we both enjoy. If you cannot accept that fact of life I´m tempted to say you are reasoning like a woman (solipsism anyone?). Marrying a cougar past the expiration date is hardly an incentive.

“Wherever there are losers, there are winners. Even in an economic melt-down there will be winners. Even in war there are winners.”

In war and economic meltdowns THERE ARE ALWAYS WINNERS AND LOSERS. I don’t think anyone has ever disagreed with this.

By the way I don´t live in the “Anglosphere” I live south Rio Grande but not in Mexico and I understand certain tennets of female behaviour are just universal (Shittesting etc.) and even here in the supposed paradise (for most pussy deprived first-worlders) I’ m not planning to marry anytime soon. Have children of my own yes, Marriage no gracias.

J.M., I mislead you if I lead you to believe that I was advocating marrying cougars or sluts, over younger tighter hotter babes.

My point was not about who is better to marry.

My point was that I believe it’s a beta fantasy of righteous revenge to believe that betas not getting laid will lead to any sort of beta uprising or beta slacking off that will substantially harm society.

I think betas play Shazam in their heads. They play Peter Parker. They look weak, but really, deep down, they are the Uberman!

Xsplat says:
“You can have your own parallel system of what is status, and your own definitions of it, but when it comes down to women, unless you are raping them, what they choose is the only valid viewpoint.

Fake is therefore real.”

I have to agree with you this time Xsplat, tairos, you have to accept that women are not objective beings and it’s time to accept it.

Well one of your posts did sound like that, my fault if I misunderstood.

And even though I have no sympathy for those who cause their own problems, a massive male dropout of society WILL hurt it(favelas in Brasil, Latinamerican underclass populations are partly because of male abandonment of traditional roles, even when in this cases they are just a factor along with poverty, sloth culture, african culture influence etc.) and will have the same pattern observed in chemical synergy in bringing down your society. Technology will only delay the process unless we shift to transhumanism within this century.

On the subject of being deliberately deceitful being an attractiveness trigger, every time I prepare to enter a woman, I say something like “No fucking. Trust me. I’m just playing around on the outside to say hello. Trust me! Come on, why don’t you trust me!”

This is in line with the belief that ACTUAL cheating is an attractiveness trigger – not just being able to – whatever that means.

Whether you accept it or not marriage was by far the best deal society had to create incentives for men to invest heavily in parenting the next generation of boys, thus enabling the hi-tech knowledge based civ we both enjoy

By your philosophy, human beings are superior because dogs take orders from them. Seriously, being alpha has nothing to do with the opinions of women; they are intrinsically irrelevant. When you’re looking for the alpha in a pack, it’s the male that dominates the others, not the one that’s the most womanizing. This is distinguishable by observing social dynamics when women are not around, and also when real alphas would be allowed to kill fake alphas.

[Editor: The Darwinian imperative is to reproduce (which we thwart with condoms and the pill). Your DNA cares nothing for how well you dominate other men. It cares only for how successful you are at piercing the outer labia of women. Seduction is a more direct route to satisfying that imperative, and those who are good at it are alpha.
ps don’t make the mistake of conflating “alpha” with admirable. The two are not the same, and women don’t care one way or the other when the subject is with which men they open their vaginas.]

“Your world view is still far too optimistic. Ponder for a while the fact that females have never been any different in their hind-brains than they are now. It is only nowadays with unprecedented female empowerment that they could get away with expressing it. In other words, it is not just the present that we were lied about but the past as well.
There never was time of stand-up alpha dudes living righteously and bravely and being rewarded for this by the love of a good woman. Even in the good old days, the women got wetter for con-artists and blackjack dealers than whatever guy was white knighting on her behalf. It is just that she knew back then to hide it better. So she could eat, etc.
Once, but no more.”

I know. But like you said, we tried put a lid on it in the past; “the patriarchy” rewarded civilized behavior to at least some extent by awarding women to men who acted appropriately. Cads risked death by outraged husbands and fathers. The kind of men that would be rewarded by the patriarchy are surely better genetic stock than some vagrant delivery boy; women’s empowerment is dysgenic. But we all know that.

Twack
Have you ever really looked at deer/elk antlers. They are huge, bulky, display thingies that are quite lame for harm-doing. I mean, they are not even sharp pointed. They rarely inflict injury.
Mostly, they show females who can carry around the most useless head ornament and still survive.
There are male fights in nature that are for real. Watch how lions decide who gets to be the main fucker. Real weapons like sharp fangs and claws are used in earnest, not fufu pea-cocking fashion statements like antlers. Lots of wild cattle have fighting horns as well but they look nothing like antlers..

“Wah wah wah! The girls are fucking the neer do well retards, instead of me! It’s all THEIR fault. Why don’t they value the inner me! I’m CLEARLY superior.

Wah wah wha! Society is going down the toilet!

None of it has anything to do with me. I’m not unattractive! Girls are psycho! Society is psycho! I’m superior to men who get laid easily!”

Why cannot all of this be true: that girls fuck the neer do well retards, that society is spiraling downward, that I AM unattractive (but it wouldn’t matter so much in the past), that girls are psycho (could anyone reasonably deny that?) and that I am superior to (at least some) men who get laid easily because women have astoundingly bad taste?

I wouldn’t blame the women though; it’s pointless. They are what they are, unfortunately.

Rum
Twack
Have you ever really looked at deer/elk antlers. They are huge, bulky, display thingies that are quite lame for harm-doing. I mean, they are not even sharp pointed. They rarely inflict injury.

Right, Thwack. The peacock tail became ever more elaborate because peahens preferentially fuck peacocks with showy tails. Pea hens chose what was status, and groomed the males through evolution to display it.

Charisma is equal to the peacock tail. You might find that if a man has charisma, he also has many other mad skills that are useful and beneficial.

Many here have discovered just that. Charisma is an all purpose social tool.

But don’t forget, sexual selection is not always for the fittest male. It can become runaway sexual selection for sexual selection for sexual selection for sexual selection.

Women choose males who other women will choose, so that their offspring will be chosen by other women. It can get to the point where the fitness marker is no longer much of a proxy for any real beneficial trait. The fitness marker can be an overall net detriment to the male, yet he’ll still be deemed more fit. Either that or some sub-species will branch off, with altered fitness markers.

For humans, charisma is a fitness marker. Face up to it, admit, accept it, embrace it, and learn it.

In which past? The one where only 40% of men got to pass on their genes? Or the one where you parents secured you a child bride of a quality that depended on how many cattle or equivalent bride price they could afford?

Careful with that time machine dial.

And while you are reminiscing up a good hallucination, ponder that time is NOT cyclic. Technology has a one way arrow.

“and that I am superior to (at least some) men who get laid easily because women have astoundingly bad taste? ”

You win the solipsism award for 2011. I know the year’s not up, but I’m giving it up.

Women have bad taste in what they are attracted to.

Woah.

It’s all mirrors in there, isn’t it? The world to you is nothing but yourself – your own opinions – other people don’t even exist. Other people viewpoints have no real validity. Other peoples sexual attraction is not valid. It’s in bad taste. You could do better. You know better.

I’m not saying I’d be an target of good taste either. But really, some of the human debris that reproduces while high IQ engineering majors (again, not me, I’m a useless liberal arts “student”) get nothing– come on. I consider good taste to be preferences that advance the (human) race, not drag it down into idiocracy.

xsplat
“But don’t forget, sexual selection is not always for the fittest male. It can become runaway sexual selection for sexual selection for sexual selection for sexual selection.

Women choose males who other women will choose, so that their offspring will be chosen by other women. It can get to the point where the fitness marker is no longer much of a proxy for any real beneficial trait. The fitness marker can be an overall net detriment to the male, yet he’ll still be deemed more fit. ”

Point taken xsplat,

and what you describe are the dynamics of the modern WHITE western world; the shit has topped out, and now its becoming nonsense. The very fact that we need a blog to discuss “game” is proof of how far off track males have gone.

Antlers are really only for “fighting” other antlers in a contest staged for the benefit of the watching female herd. Generally they are shed after mating season precisely because they are not weapons that serve their owners day to day interests. IOWs, except for the getting of deer/elk pussy, they are just in the way.
Many species of antelope in America can run much faster than any predator. The mating ritual involves the males racing by the watching females who then back themselves towards the winners. You could say that males have great speed to out-race other males but that would be out of focus. Their speed is all about the getting of antelope pussy. Period. Full Stop.
Contrast this with wild cattle like African Buffalo. Males and females have horns at all times that are positioned low for effective use and are razor-sharp. They kill or try to kill predators thereby.

on April 28, 2011 at 12:28 am Rum
Contrast this with wild cattle like African Buffalo. Males and females have horns at all times that are positioned low for effective use and are razor-sharp. They kill or try to kill predators thereby.

Very interesting Rum, thanks for the info. All I know is when I visit those parks where the deer ain’t afraid of you, its very intimidating when you are face to face with them antlers. I hit a deer in a van in 2006; he destroyed my radiator and ran off. That mother fucker was all muscle. Maybe Yall ain’t intimidated by antlers cause of something you read in a book. Me?

I ain’t trying to test a cloven hoof mofo that got an eye as big as mine.

There are no alpha or beta females, only differing levels of hotness and fertility (fecundity).

@xsplat,

1. Cars are relatively cheap and easy to obtain. Lots of people drive nice cars that they really can’t afford.

2. Women of a certain age are often looking to get married to a provider type to pay for everything.

3. Women are typically bigger consumers than men are, or at least more likely to follow trends. If a man is by himself he is more likely to spend less or only buy things that he has a particular interest in. If he has a wife, then the wife may induce him to spend more. The wife might want to get a specific house. She may want to interior decorate. She may want a specific car. Wives and girlfriends get their partners to spend money on things they wouldn’t otherwise spend money on. If more men are single they are likely to put less money into the economy.

IN GENERAL,
you can bandy around definitions of “alpha”,
“beta” and so forth, but the problem is real.

There is a pyramid of mostly men carrying the
economy forward. The founders of Intel, Microsoft etc
and the inventors of some of the underlying technologies
are at the top. Then a widening pyramid of “lesser”
but collectively critically important workers.

Maintaining a rewards system that keeps this
pyramid intact – or improved – is necessary for society to advance.

But the pyramid is under attack. All levels, but particularly the
top level, are under a threat of crushing taxation (or the
reality of it). And below the very top level, there are LOTS
of men who are professionally “near alpha” but sexually
“beta”. Those are the Sodinis. And no, they don’t need to
shoot anybody, it is plenty bad enough if they reduce their
efforts and spend time playing videogames. There is no pussy
reward for them. They pay for other people’s children
(“it is for the children” dixit Hillary). And they are not
happy.

Additionally, the US and Canada has traditionally benefited
from the “brain drain” from Europe and East Asia.
We are near the tipping point where these people,
mostly populating the pyramid, stop coming.
And instead, prepare for many leaving, whether immigrant
or native-born.

To redress this, we need to

o Reduce taxes
o Remove the incentive to become single mothers, via the
welfare system. (This frees up money to do the first part,
but that is only part of the point.)

This will re-incentivise the people working the pyramid,
and we might yet save Western civ.

As to horns and antlers:
The ungulates consist mainly of two families,
bovidae and cervidae. They have the same clever
set of four stomachs but are otherwise quite different.

Generally,

Horns: Both genders, do not shed, are good weapons.

Antlers: Males only (except rein-deer/caribou), shed annually.

Only moderately useful as weapons.

Comments on comments:

@Xplat
“My point was that I believe it’s a beta fantasy of righteous revenge
to believe that betas not getting laid will lead to any sort
of beta uprising or beta slacking off that will substantially harm society.”

I believe you are wrong. See above.

@xsplat

“In which past?”

Sure, by selecting a time in the past, you can to some
extent get the results you want. But in this thread,
mostly, “the past” is roughly Victoria through say 1965, and
referring to industrialized or industrializing countries.
Unless otherwise specified.

@Tairos
“I consider good taste to be preferences that advance the
(human) race, not drag it down into idiocracy.”

I would agree. But, unfortunately, the world does not
work that way. Darwinian selection works primarily on the
individual level, not the group level – UNLESS the whole
group evolves into something seriously unworkable, in which
case the group vanishes (killed off, invaded, dissolved,
whatever). Thus we need to act as per above.

@DeezNutz
“If more men are single they are likely to put less money
into the economy.”

True, but misstating the problem. The problem is that they
are likely to put less EFFORT into the economy. The money
is secondary.

I notice it happening more and more, i run into girls from the past and they recognize the alpha. They wait and wait. But then the hampster starts and they try and rationalize why they can’t have you to themself.

But what i cant understand is, they dont even deserve an alpha to themself!

In america these women are trained to compete and conquer the alpha, its gets old, i wish they would just go away, man this site is so enlightning.

Roissey i never hear you address the kids issue, women prefer and seek alphas to have kids with. But how do you approach and deal with women who will always be in your life due to kids, they also wait decades or is their way of claiming a peice of the alpha?

Is that why my girl swears i have been with other girls, i travel often, keep myself up and game. But her love for me continues to grow the more aloof and stuck in my ways i become, secretly is this what all woman like or just some?

Black, you’re right, but at the moment, things are crazy. Every man, barring some serious dysfunction has alpha-enough traits to lead something. They’re having that beaten, drugged, and emotionally abused out of them by a currently misandrist culture.

So the Game education may not turn a guy who’s larger scale beta into an alpha, but it can man him up enough to get laid, which is really what most of them want.

Between the lines of rawness, we all know that in real life, most people have fairly limited options and that there are tradeoffs. The guy who gets unlimited hot chicks might have trouble finding one with good enough character to stick around when something happens that might shake his confidence. The guy who gets a woman with good character might have some tough choices to make when she’s no longer young or hey, if she dies and there aren’t many around who could remotely measure up to her.

Stuff happens in life, but just as it’s a good idea to study anything else so you have more choices, it’s a good idea to have game.

It’s for the same reason that even though some women will never be natural beauties, it still pays to take care of themselves. When we take care of ourselves, it at least shows we’re women with our heads on straight. It’s not being a hottie, but it’s something.

A man needs to know how to handle women, even if he’ll only be handling one woman in his lifetime.

If you really care for someone, you would not want to make them feel like second best, the whole point to me is to help EACH OTHER be the best you can be and assist EACH OTHER in reaching your goals (it must be a two way street). I couldn’t imagine my SO or myself doing this to each other, or accepting this kind of behavior from each other. If the person you love is not satisfied with being with just you, it’s time to move on. (And I’m not religious in the slightest, so my view doesn’t derive from that).

Now that is not to say that a man shouldn’t be allowed to flirt with other women at times. I personally don’t need that sort of outside validation to prove my womanhood to myself or others, but I have many male friends that I have known since childhood, and they are good guys, but for one reason or another need that validation. I don’t claim to entirely understand it, but I know they are not horrible people because of it. The male ego is a strange thing, and even though as women we don’t entirely understand it, we can’t wish away the fact that it is a driving force. But I can say in those cases where my friends seek this validation outside their relationship – they are not being made to feel special in their respective relationships.

Perhaps if their SO’s did what it takes to make them feel special and important in their relationships, they wouldn’t seek this validation elsewhere? If they were treated as humans with complex emotions and needs, instead of being treated like a mindless, emotionless stereotype?

I don’t think it denigrates a woman/man to stroke their partner’s ego from time to time if you really love them, as long as the stroking is reciprocated. ;) And if you don’t reciprocate and only want to make demands, expect that your man/woman will be getting what he/she needs elsewhere.

Sorry this comment was sort of all over the place, but I’m sure you get my point.